BillsCelticsAngelsBama Posted March 25, 2012 Posted March 25, 2012 Bump - Drafttek changed the pick from 42 to 41, but not from 74 to 72. I think it is now 10th, 41st and 71st since we move up one slotto 8th position in Round 3 and the Saints forfeited their second rounder.
Astrobot Posted March 25, 2012 Posted March 25, 2012 There is a lot of mock draft sites where one guru purports to know about all 32 teams (draft tendencies, current needs) and all 400 players every year. They are welcome to their opinion. Everybody's got one. DraftTek decided to go in a different direction, with 32 team analysts submitting their team's needs weekly (and over the last 2 weeks, after every major FA signing). Several experts prepare a Big Board; these guys actually go to games, watch film, and attend the combine, and slot player ability. A computer does the drafting, and analysts comment on the picks. Viewership was steadily increasing over the last 4 years, but has spiked significantly this year. For years, I have been exclusively a Two Bills Drive poster, hoping it reflects the Bills fan community perspective on team needs. I think I've done a good job recording those needs. I can't respond if you don't like who the computer picked based on where you see that player vs. where the DraftTek experts see that player vs. where Mel or Mort sees that player. Draft Talk is for fun and discussion, folks. As Ben and Jerry say, "If it's not fun, why do it?" --Astro Astro I think it is now 10th, 41st and 71st since we move up one slotto 8th position in Round 3 and the Saints forfeited their second rounder. You are correct. We are now 71st... http://www.drafttek.com/CMDRound3.asp then RD4#104 and 123, then RD5#135 and 138, then RD6#166, and our RD7 remains at 199.
ExWNYer Posted March 25, 2012 Posted March 25, 2012 There is a lot of mock draft sites where one guru purports to know about all 32 teams (draft tendencies, current needs) and all 400 players every year. They are welcome to their opinion. Everybody's got one. DraftTek decided to go in a different direction, with 32 team analysts submitting their team's needs weekly (and over the last 2 weeks, after every major FA signing). Several experts prepare a Big Board; these guys actually go to games, watch film, and attend the combine, and slot player ability. A computer does the drafting, and analysts comment on the picks. Viewership was steadily increasing over the last 4 years, but has spiked significantly this year. For years, I have been exclusively a Two Bills Drive poster, hoping it reflects the Bills fan community perspective on team needs. I think I've done a good job recording those needs. I can't respond if you don't like who the computer picked based on where you see that player vs. where the DraftTek experts see that player vs. where Mel or Mort sees that player. Draft Talk is for fun and discussion, folks. As Ben and Jerry say, "If it's not fun, why do it?" --Astro Astro You are correct. We are now 71st... http://www.drafttek.com/CMDRound3.asp then RD4#104 and 123, then RD5#135 and 138, then RD6#166, and our RD7 remains at 199. Ignore the naysayers, Astro. Thanks for your contributions. They are much appreciated in a long, often times boring stretch between season's end and the draft. A much needed diversion. Keep up the good work.
BuffaloBillsSD Posted March 25, 2012 Posted March 25, 2012 People who complain about draftek are probably the same people who complain when facebook changes. They are both free and you can choose not to use them. Thanks for the work Astro.
LynchMob23 Posted March 25, 2012 Author Posted March 25, 2012 Like I said to start this thread - this wasn't an Astro or Drafttek witch hunt, I just wanted to make him and them aware of an issue. With the computer accounting for needs as it does, being off a few picks threw off (to me) the exercise. Respect.
BuffaloBillsSD Posted March 25, 2012 Posted March 25, 2012 Like I said to start this thread - this wasn't an Astro or Drafttek witch hunt, I just wanted to make him and them aware of an issue. With the computer accounting for needs as it does, being off a few picks threw off (to me) the exercise. Respect. My comment wasn't directed at you, the questions you had were legitimate.
3rdand12 Posted March 25, 2012 Posted March 25, 2012 Like I said to start this thread - this wasn't an Astro or Drafttek witch hunt, I just wanted to make him and them aware of an issue. With the computer accounting for needs as it does, being off a few picks threw off (to me) the exercise. Respect. Yes it's a valid point and a nice clarification! benefits Draftek and us when we have actual data as compared to umm not actual data. You did good and that astro guy is pretty straight up so..
Astrobot Posted March 25, 2012 Posted March 25, 2012 Like I said to start this thread - this wasn't an Astro or Drafttek witch hunt, I just wanted to make him and them aware of an issue. With the computer accounting for needs as it does, being off a few picks threw off (to me) the exercise. Respect. No harm no foul, LM. I got kudos for pointing it out to the Boss at DraftTek! We can't believe you were the first (out of 100,000 visits per day) to spot the inconsistency!
LynchMob23 Posted March 25, 2012 Author Posted March 25, 2012 No harm no foul, LM. I got kudos for pointing it out to the Boss at DraftTek! We can't believe you were the first (out of 100,000 visits per day) to spot the inconsistency! It's a little thing I do every year - whenever I get official picks for the Bills at least from C Brown I put it in a draft notebook I make for that year. So I just wanted to give a heads up!
3rdand12 Posted March 25, 2012 Posted March 25, 2012 (edited) And there you have it folks. And thats all for tonight from us here at cBs news. Edited March 25, 2012 by 3rdand12
Recommended Posts